Is Violence justified for Justice?: Age Old Debate

Views of Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre. Opinion on the classic question of Violence and Justice.

“Justice, if not unduly delayed, restores public faith in due process and the criminal justice system” (The Hindu, May 13). Yet in India, delay has become the norm. Procedural rigidity and judicial inefficiency have weakened public confidence. As faith erodes, impatience grows. That impatience often turns into approval for violence, seen as a faster substitute for justice.

Violence against criminals may appear decisive, even satisfying. It ends the matter quickly. But speed does not make it just. The question of whether violence can ever serve justice remains deeply unsettled. The 2015 documentary India’s Daughter, based on the 2012 Delhi gang rape, exposed not just the brutality of the crime but the warped, remorseless thinking of the perpetrators. Punishing such criminals is necessary. But punishment alone does not dismantle the mindset that produces such crimes.

Public discourse frequently demands extreme responses—death penalties, encounters, instant retribution. After the 2024–25 terror attacks in Jammu and Kashmir, including the Pahalgam incident, calls for the “most brutal response” dominated public conversation. These reactions flow from rage, not reason. They mistake vengeance for justice.

Albert Camus warned against becoming what one fights, while Jean-Paul Sartre argued that violence may feel like liberation but often recreates the very oppression it seeks to destroy. When the state mirrors the criminal’s logic, it weakens its moral authority.

A professional justice system does not abandon restraint under pressure. Alongside stricter punishment, India must strengthen security infrastructure, improve investigation, and educate future leaders against dehumanising thought. Justice cannot rely on fear alone. It must rest on certainty, speed, and principle—without surrendering to violence itself.